Lazy analysis, blah blah "Marxism" but clearly never read Marx. I don't mind spicy takes, but I draw lines at Brain-Dead Takes. Parallels so strained they only stay together because you demand them to.
It's quite literally Marxism (don't get hung up on economics cultural Marxism is real too). If you'd like to share responses here we genuine appreciate them, but there is no need for ad hominem remarks.
There is a fundamental contradiction in many critiques of DEI. In the one hand, it’s a powerful Marxist movement to undermine America and on the other it’s a purely performative waste of time. It cannot be both. In my many years in corporate roles, I saw DEI initiatives as underfunded, performative activities. I have seen precious little Marxism but I have seen organizations engage in a lot of shady shit (working mothers often bearing the brunt of this).
Dude, you need to stop writing about stuff you don't understand. This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance, and you clearly need to dig deeper. You take some examples of failures of DEI to make the case the entire initiative was worthless which is objectively not true. Then you make the leap to Marxism and I honestly don't think you understand Marxism.
You write well on some great topics, but this is not one of them.
I understand this very well and that is precisely the problem for the collectivists, that rank and file Americans pushed back against it and aren't having WEF-style globalism run our culture. None of this stands up to scrutiny and thus we were encouraged to play along.
It’s also strange to jump straight from Marxism to 2020 DEI without explaining a continuum through academia anchored on Marcuse, Foucault, feminism, critical theory, etc. Marxism is a bigger scarier more recognizable word though.
Like above commenter, your media and marketing centered articles are more worthwhile for this (non-paying) subscriber. ✌🏼
But remember, all this affects media and marketing. Both those industries are *heavily* influenced by what is happening above. I don't think you can even do your job well or understand audiences without understanding the culture. This is precisely where Bud Light, Jaguar and others have gone wrong - they understood nothing about American audiences and how to signal to users.
I'll stand by DEI being textbook cultural Marxism (honestly, simplest conceptual descriptor) and a ton of what we see is downstream from this being promoted in academia, then manifesting in corporate America. It is very fair to say all the thinkers you list are also leftists expressing Marxist concepts (or evolutions of). If you have alternative explanations I'm happy to read them btw please link us some literature.
I do appreciate that you chose to post pretty coherent thoughts on the topic regardless of whether I liked or agreed. Maybe it’s just that there’s a lot more “takes” like this now and a lot of it triumphant crowing from voices I can’t stand. The people and movements I rattled off will remain part of higher academic discourse and hard to dislodge unless somehow ordered by a BS exec order. We’ll see an interesting dichotomy play out in that tension for a while.
Great article Adam. My main concern is DEI might come back in another form. I think many people believe there are no meaningful in abilities between populations, therefore any differences in outcomes must be due to some bias or injustice. If someone were to ask you “So how do you want to reduce inequalities?” what would be your answer?
I think the simple solution is offer financial support to everyone based purely on economic status, blind to anything else. We should do what we can to lift everyone off 0 and into the game. This can be accomplished without a sprawling empire of middlemen and rent seekers. Get everyone educated and feeling confident to compete together.
Great piece Adam. Of course there are those who will always disagree on the basis on allegedly ill-defined terms, but its clear what the main drive of DEI is.
I came to a similar conclusion, though from a slightly different perspective, in my recent piece - would appreciate if you (or anyone else) had the time to check it out.
This needed an editor, it’s not well executed. There’s a bunch of jumps that those who already agree will happily make and gaps that are easy for those who disagree to grab ahold. Think this is showing true in the comment section.
You're right of course, (some) commenters were never going to be happy about this one, trying my best we can't write more than about this length and have the email go through. Plenty of links to go through if you wanted some additional perspectives I think are helpful.
I’m not sure it’s just length. Consider that one of the leading data points to push DEI was that those companies who scored better on diversity tended to be more profitable and successful. The charlatans jumped on this and mandated stuff without realizing it was a mindset, not setting thresholds that separated those firms.
My point is that countering the ills requires those types of easy to follow data point which I found missing in your piece. Take the antisemitism bits - there were equally people critical of Israel who were sent for re-education, it happened to someone senior at Creative Artist Agency. And to be clear, re education was the words used by the firm to describe the action they took! I don’t have the right data point but it exists if DEI was a bad idea.
As an aside, full respect for wading into the comments and exchanging respectfully with critics. To me, that says more than any article.
Yeah I don't think people should need re-education camps, that's fairly dystopian too. Can't we just all see and treat each other better, as American citizens. And I appreciate all perspectives here, I'm glad we can debate this issue openly (for awhile the mob would try to cancel you if you even broached the subject). This is how we get to better policy and perspective for everyone.
The federal government did not mandate private companies to implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the government may encourage diversity and inclusion through laws and regulations (such as anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act), it does not require private companies to adopt specific DEI programs.
Private companies typically implement DEI initiatives voluntarily, often because they recognize the value of fostering an inclusive workplace or because it aligns with their business goals, values, or industry standards. Some companies may also do so to attract diverse talent, improve innovation, or enhance their reputation in the marketplace. However, these decisions are driven by business considerations rather than federal mandates.
Government regulations, however, may apply to federal contractors or organizations receiving federal funding. For example, Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in employment. These requirements are not the same as private companies choosing to implement DEI programs independently.
Just look at the dismantling of DEI at the federal level that just happened. These things of course are signaling and trickle down. Note there has been litigation in California *against* policies that were overtly exclusionary. It's all going away anyway so doesn't matter now.
I’m not going to defend DEI but calling it “Marxist” is laughable, and then shoehorning campus politics in is hysterical. It’s “Cultural Marxism” in the sense that many pundits say everything they dislike is “Cultural Marxism”
I appreciate the response, but that’s a flattening of the left. DEI would fall into the left-liberal Elizabeth Warren wing of the left, not into the Marxist DSA-wing.
I feel just mildly gaslit here, as a Jewish person warning about the far left my intentions are fairly clear. We should be concerned with and have discourse around all extremes and activists poisoning culture. No one is talking about normal progressives, and in fact normal progressives should be more vocal about these people coopting the party than anyone else. They lost because most didn't say anything. BTW other concern now that conservatives won is any of the "woke right" doing equally silly things.
I agree that painting with broad strokes is harmful. Throwing all DEI into that category (and conflating it with ESG) does just that. There are those who chose to adopt DEI as a kind of moral-washing, which explains why they were so willing to shed their programs when brought under scrutiny. Those that actually have values that speak to honoring the dignity and contributions of everyone and reward them according to their abilities -- those don't deserve to be lumped in.
The "everything I hate is woke/DEI/Marxist" angle is no more of a solution than "everything I hate needs to be viewed through DEI" angle.
High ESG scores were achieved through ticking DEI boxes. This is precisely how the incentives worked which is why I included it. And good news here, removing DEI means nothing can be viewed through that lens any longer and hopefully return to a normal society.
Lazy analysis, blah blah "Marxism" but clearly never read Marx. I don't mind spicy takes, but I draw lines at Brain-Dead Takes. Parallels so strained they only stay together because you demand them to.
No solutions - not realistic, anyway.
It was interesting while it was interesting.
It's quite literally Marxism (don't get hung up on economics cultural Marxism is real too). If you'd like to share responses here we genuine appreciate them, but there is no need for ad hominem remarks.
There is a fundamental contradiction in many critiques of DEI. In the one hand, it’s a powerful Marxist movement to undermine America and on the other it’s a purely performative waste of time. It cannot be both. In my many years in corporate roles, I saw DEI initiatives as underfunded, performative activities. I have seen precious little Marxism but I have seen organizations engage in a lot of shady shit (working mothers often bearing the brunt of this).
My own take is here: https://tempo.substack.com/p/enter-divers-spirits
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Matt, appreciated
Dude, you need to stop writing about stuff you don't understand. This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance, and you clearly need to dig deeper. You take some examples of failures of DEI to make the case the entire initiative was worthless which is objectively not true. Then you make the leap to Marxism and I honestly don't think you understand Marxism.
You write well on some great topics, but this is not one of them.
I understand this very well and that is precisely the problem for the collectivists, that rank and file Americans pushed back against it and aren't having WEF-style globalism run our culture. None of this stands up to scrutiny and thus we were encouraged to play along.
It’s also strange to jump straight from Marxism to 2020 DEI without explaining a continuum through academia anchored on Marcuse, Foucault, feminism, critical theory, etc. Marxism is a bigger scarier more recognizable word though.
Like above commenter, your media and marketing centered articles are more worthwhile for this (non-paying) subscriber. ✌🏼
But remember, all this affects media and marketing. Both those industries are *heavily* influenced by what is happening above. I don't think you can even do your job well or understand audiences without understanding the culture. This is precisely where Bud Light, Jaguar and others have gone wrong - they understood nothing about American audiences and how to signal to users.
I'll stand by DEI being textbook cultural Marxism (honestly, simplest conceptual descriptor) and a ton of what we see is downstream from this being promoted in academia, then manifesting in corporate America. It is very fair to say all the thinkers you list are also leftists expressing Marxist concepts (or evolutions of). If you have alternative explanations I'm happy to read them btw please link us some literature.
I do appreciate that you chose to post pretty coherent thoughts on the topic regardless of whether I liked or agreed. Maybe it’s just that there’s a lot more “takes” like this now and a lot of it triumphant crowing from voices I can’t stand. The people and movements I rattled off will remain part of higher academic discourse and hard to dislodge unless somehow ordered by a BS exec order. We’ll see an interesting dichotomy play out in that tension for a while.
thanks sean H, I appreciate you
I don’t think you know what Marxism is
This is 100% cultural Marxism, textbook even, please elaborate if you believe there is a different definition.
Bro I’m a Marxist and hate DEI 😭
Great article Adam. My main concern is DEI might come back in another form. I think many people believe there are no meaningful in abilities between populations, therefore any differences in outcomes must be due to some bias or injustice. If someone were to ask you “So how do you want to reduce inequalities?” what would be your answer?
I think the simple solution is offer financial support to everyone based purely on economic status, blind to anything else. We should do what we can to lift everyone off 0 and into the game. This can be accomplished without a sprawling empire of middlemen and rent seekers. Get everyone educated and feeling confident to compete together.
I like that. Simple and effective. Thanks Adam!
Great piece Adam. Of course there are those who will always disagree on the basis on allegedly ill-defined terms, but its clear what the main drive of DEI is.
I came to a similar conclusion, though from a slightly different perspective, in my recent piece - would appreciate if you (or anyone else) had the time to check it out.
Will take a read, found it on your Substack thanks Darren
You keep referencing that DEI values do not represent what America is. I would extend this premise to any society, not only the us
You put into words masterfully my latent thoughts in a potent and coherent fashion!
Simplistic rubbish propaganda.
The antisemitic caricature I posted an image of from a diversity seminar is indeed simplistic rubbish propaganda, agree
This needed an editor, it’s not well executed. There’s a bunch of jumps that those who already agree will happily make and gaps that are easy for those who disagree to grab ahold. Think this is showing true in the comment section.
You're right of course, (some) commenters were never going to be happy about this one, trying my best we can't write more than about this length and have the email go through. Plenty of links to go through if you wanted some additional perspectives I think are helpful.
I’m not sure it’s just length. Consider that one of the leading data points to push DEI was that those companies who scored better on diversity tended to be more profitable and successful. The charlatans jumped on this and mandated stuff without realizing it was a mindset, not setting thresholds that separated those firms.
Whatever is more profitable to do, companies should absolutely keep doing it. This will honestly occur without state intervention.
My point is that countering the ills requires those types of easy to follow data point which I found missing in your piece. Take the antisemitism bits - there were equally people critical of Israel who were sent for re-education, it happened to someone senior at Creative Artist Agency. And to be clear, re education was the words used by the firm to describe the action they took! I don’t have the right data point but it exists if DEI was a bad idea.
As an aside, full respect for wading into the comments and exchanging respectfully with critics. To me, that says more than any article.
Yeah I don't think people should need re-education camps, that's fairly dystopian too. Can't we just all see and treat each other better, as American citizens. And I appreciate all perspectives here, I'm glad we can debate this issue openly (for awhile the mob would try to cancel you if you even broached the subject). This is how we get to better policy and perspective for everyone.
What state intervention?
The federal government did not mandate private companies to implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. While the government may encourage diversity and inclusion through laws and regulations (such as anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act), it does not require private companies to adopt specific DEI programs.
Private companies typically implement DEI initiatives voluntarily, often because they recognize the value of fostering an inclusive workplace or because it aligns with their business goals, values, or industry standards. Some companies may also do so to attract diverse talent, improve innovation, or enhance their reputation in the marketplace. However, these decisions are driven by business considerations rather than federal mandates.
Government regulations, however, may apply to federal contractors or organizations receiving federal funding. For example, Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors to engage in affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in employment. These requirements are not the same as private companies choosing to implement DEI programs independently.
Just look at the dismantling of DEI at the federal level that just happened. These things of course are signaling and trickle down. Note there has been litigation in California *against* policies that were overtly exclusionary. It's all going away anyway so doesn't matter now.
I’m not going to defend DEI but calling it “Marxist” is laughable, and then shoehorning campus politics in is hysterical. It’s “Cultural Marxism” in the sense that many pundits say everything they dislike is “Cultural Marxism”
Cultural Marxism / American Maoism are the right descriptors, what else do you think the far left is based on?
I appreciate the response, but that’s a flattening of the left. DEI would fall into the left-liberal Elizabeth Warren wing of the left, not into the Marxist DSA-wing.
Yeah it's fair they aren't outright economic marxist but cultural marxists for sure James Lindsay talks about this a bit here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rk1mYiOAw
This is such a brain rot take the only thing hot is the short-circuited brain working on this piece
“Cultural Marxism”? That sounds remarkably similar to a historical term with the same intention.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism
Careful, grasshopper.
I feel just mildly gaslit here, as a Jewish person warning about the far left my intentions are fairly clear. We should be concerned with and have discourse around all extremes and activists poisoning culture. No one is talking about normal progressives, and in fact normal progressives should be more vocal about these people coopting the party than anyone else. They lost because most didn't say anything. BTW other concern now that conservatives won is any of the "woke right" doing equally silly things.
I agree that painting with broad strokes is harmful. Throwing all DEI into that category (and conflating it with ESG) does just that. There are those who chose to adopt DEI as a kind of moral-washing, which explains why they were so willing to shed their programs when brought under scrutiny. Those that actually have values that speak to honoring the dignity and contributions of everyone and reward them according to their abilities -- those don't deserve to be lumped in.
The "everything I hate is woke/DEI/Marxist" angle is no more of a solution than "everything I hate needs to be viewed through DEI" angle.
High ESG scores were achieved through ticking DEI boxes. This is precisely how the incentives worked which is why I included it. And good news here, removing DEI means nothing can be viewed through that lens any longer and hopefully return to a normal society.
@adamsinger: Please how exactly do you define „marxist thinking“? How does it translate into the principles of DEI in your view?
I shared this a few times in the post, but here's a good video if you need one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rk1mYiOAw
Thank you.
Bless, appreciate the interest in everyone hearing perspectives on this topic
a white male complaining about an initiative benefiting other demographics, what a surprise
It is honestly unamerican (and morally quite childish) to obsess over race and gender like you are here. We are past this part of history.
that aged well